His lack of commitment was startling to coaches from the day he was claimed off waivers from the Titans an undrafted rookie in 2010. For the first two weeks after being acquired by Tampa Bay, Blount, who was suspended at Oregon for punching a Boise State player, never made it to work on time and compiled fines of more than $15,000. Exasperated, then-coach Raheem Morris and general manager Mark Dominik ordered him to hire a car service with a driver to wake him up in the morning and transport him less than 3 miles from his apartment to One Buc Place. After a few weeks, they canceled the car service for one day. And Blount was late. He continued to need a driver to get to work in 2011. But his poor preparation habits also spread to the meeting room, where coaches said he would sometimes fall asleep.

I've been rethinking my position on trading for a RB, and I think I am all for it now. Getting a top tier RB in our backfield right now with Rodgers would help both the offense (to extend drives), and the defense (to keep them off the field as much as possible).

Ted, make the trade! I would prefer either of Blount or Jackson. Do it!!!! Trade a #3. Go for it. The one you didn't trade for Lynch got us Green. Don't make the same mistake twice.

I've been rethinking my position on trading for a RB, and I think I am all for it now. Getting a top tier RB in our backfield right now with Rodgers would help both the offense (to extend drives), and the defense (to keep them off the field as much as possible).

Ted, make the trade! I would prefer either of Blount or Jackson. Do it!!!! Trade a #3. Go for it. The one you didn't trade for Lynch got us Green. Don't make the same mistake twice.

To be fair though, having Lynch on this team and his new contract would probably mean losing another key player; perhaps Raji, Jennings, etc. Perhaps that would be worth it, but there's something to say about a cheaper player to preserve other seemingly more important positions, in this offense anyway. Additionally, Lynch is a guy that needs carries to really get going, which is something he sometimes wouldn't get in this offense.

To be fair though, having Lynch on this team and his new contract would probably mean losing another key player; perhaps Raji, Jennings, etc. Perhaps that would be worth it, but there's something to say about a cheaper player to preserve other seemingly more important positions, in this offense anyway. Additionally, Lynch is a guy that needs carries to really get going, which is something he sometimes wouldn't get in this offense.

Well doddpower, I do know we won a SB the year many people wanted us to trade for Lynch. Looking back, there were some disappointed players when we didn't make the move, like Woodson and Rodgers. I would say, we might have fared better last season had we made the trade. Running to extend drives and save your defense is something we desperately needed last year, and we could use better production on that end this year too.

Your point is well taken on the number of players we need to re-sign after this season, and money spent on a RB now to finish our season may take away from getting more mid-season signing opportunities completed. I just happen to think adding a proven pro like Steven Jackson would give this team quite a bit more confidence, and could go a long way towards our getting another SB win. That is what we need, and I don't know if we can trust the RBs we have currently to get the job done - I mean, in reaching that ultimate goal. Starks has so much proving to do, and I don't know about Green. Adding Jackson could work wonders. and I think it might be worth the pick.

With a salary of 540k only about 1/2 we would be responsible for, and for only a 7th rounder. This is the type of move I would love to see. We all dream of what a productive run game could do for Rodgers and the passing game. This is a type of move to make if you are serious about doing everything you can to try and win a SB. He may turn out not to be the answer, but then again, he might. And it wouldn't cost the team much.

The NFL trade deadline is approaching, as any opportunity to trade players within the NFL this season will end on Thursday. That means we'll see a lot of rumors, most of them turning to absolutely nothing. One of them certainly is significant and has consistently been mentioned: the Tampa Bay Buccaneers want to trade Legarrette Blount.

Trading Blount would be perfectly logical. Doug Martin looks like a feature back, the Bucs have two backups in the form of D.J. Ware and Michael Smith and Blount is barely featuring in this offense. He could also be worth a bit: he's incredibly cheap this season, as he's playing under an exclusive-rights tender (worth just slightly more than the minimum salary), and he'll be a restricted free agent next year.

Despite all of those factors, ESPN's John Clayton reports that Legarrette Blount could be had for just a seventh-round pick (via Evan Silva). Apparently the Bucs are in the market of handing out players for peanuts. After all, they received nothing for Kellen Winslow, barely anything for Brian Price and simply cut Tanard Jackson and Dezmon Briscoe. Getting value hasn't been at the forefront of their minds since Greg Schiano got here.

Still, trading Blount for a seventh-round pick seems silly. Blount is far from the greatest running back in the NFL, but he's still a useful player. Giving 30 touches per game to Doug Martin isn't exactly sustainable, and Blount is a decent if inconsistent runner. Despite losing Carl Nicks for the season, the Bucs have a chance to make the playoffs and Blount could play a role there. Is a measly seventh-round pick worth more than a decent backup running back?

If the Bucs do trade him for a seventh-rounder, that will tell us exactly what they think of Legarrette Blount: someone who is useless on this team.

I understand there's not much the Packers could do to improve the offensive line run blocking at this point in the season, but as many others have said, that's a higher priority for me. Regardless of the reason, be it scheme, talent, execution, etc., if the offensive line blocked better, the running backs currently on the roster would do a sufficient job, at worst. With this blocking, I really don't think anything other than an elite talent at RB would make a substantial difference. I don't consider Blount, Jackson, or even D. Williams an elite talent. As a result, I can't see them being worth much money at all (or especially a nice draft pick).

If for some reason the Bucs were really interested in trading Blount for a 7th, of course I'd love that. I really can't imagine why in the hell the Bucs would trade him for that, but if so, the Packers should jump all over it.

I've been rethinking my position on trading for a RB, and I think I am all for it now. Getting a top tier RB in our backfield right now with Rodgers would help both the offense (to extend drives), and the defense (to keep them off the field as much as possible).

Ted, make the trade! I would prefer either of Blount or Jackson. Do it!!!! Trade a #3. Go for it. The one you didn't trade for Lynch got us Green. Don't make the same mistake twice.

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

Looking back on it... it might of been nice having Lynch instead of Green. Though that's the short term... long run it could be different. But Lynch hopefully would of been able to do more and so teams could focus so much on the passing game making it even better.

Zero2Cool said:

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

Zero2Cool said:

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

So I'd say late 4th and mid 5th.

So according to the "Value-Chart" which is outdated and never was totally correct though two combined would be about "88" points or high 4th round pick.

So Green's 3rd round pick by it's self should of more than covered it... even if they threw their 7th round pick with Lynch.

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

You sure think you're smart with that hindsight in your back pocket huh lol. This isn't your fault, its mine. Okay, fixing my error that I assumed others were following along with, AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE, the Packers were presumed to be selecting later in the round than Seahawks, who btw, played so poorly their coach was fired.

At the time of the trade.Seahawks 2 - 2Packers 3 - 1

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

I believe 2010 was the year the Seahawks were 7 - 9 and won a playoff game (that I predicted they would btw) that actually put them so late in each round.

I hope I've explained myself and my pea brain thinking much better than I did before.

I think a 3rd is worth what he would now add to the team. Figure, we trade for him tomorrow. We play both Starks and Green Sunday v. AZ, then Jackson has two solid weeks to get up to speed with our O.

Imagine how excited the rest of this team would be adding another talent like that to our backfield. Without the trade, we seem pretty thin at RB. I think a move like that would add to our chances at a Super Bowl win. I think not making this trade could have the inverse effect.

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

Good point. It was early in the year.

play2win said:

All I'm saying is: make the freaking trade Ted! ;-)

I think a 3rd is worth what he would now add to the team. Figure, we trade for him tomorrow. We play both Starks and Green Sunday v. AZ, then Jackson has two solid weeks to get up to speed with our O.

Looking back on it I think Lynch might of been good. But Jackson is 29 and seems like RBs drop off around 30... so I don't know... also depend on what are the Rams asking for in return and what is Jackson looking for to sign a 3 year or so deal...

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.